Khalipha v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (46963/2011) [2025] ZAGPJHC 648 (25 March 2025)

Khalipha v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (46963/2011) [2025] ZAGPJHC 648 (25 March 2025)

The court found that the plaintiff attempted to board the train after the whistle had been blown and the train had started moving, with its doors closing. The evidence established that pre-departure safety measures were complied with and that the plaintiff ignored clear warnings, thereby acting negligently. However, the defendant also bore a duty to ensure the doors were closed before the train moved, and its failure to do so contributed to the risk. On the probabilities, the plaintiff was primarily responsible for her injuries, but the defendant was also negligent to a lesser degree. Liability was apportioned at 80% to the plaintiff and 20% to the defendant under the Apportionment of...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 648
Parties
Plaintiff: Khalipha Banjiwe Ziyanda; Defendant: Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 March 2025
Case Number
46963/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability Separated Under Rule 33(4); Quantum Postponed Sine Die
Outcome
Liability apportioned: defendant liable for 20% of plaintiff's damages; plaintiff 80% contributorily negligent.
Judges
EF Dippenaar
Legal Topics
Apportionment of Damages Act, Public Carrier Liability, Contributory Negligence, Personal Injury, Railway Safety
Delict Land and Property Apportionment of Damages Act Public Carrier Liability Contributory Negligence Personal Injury Railway Safety

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khalipha Banjiwe Ziyanda

Plaintiff

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability Separated Under Rule 33(4); Quantum Postponed Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached its legal duty to protect the plaintiff from physical harm while using its transportation services.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was negligent in attempting to board a moving train after pre-departure safety warnings.
  3. 3 Whether liability should be apportioned between the plaintiff and the defendant under the Apportionment of Damages Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff attempted to board the train after the whistle had been blown and the train had started moving, with its doors closing. The evidence established that pre-departure safety measures were complied with and that the plaintiff ignored clear warnings, thereby acting negligently. However, the defendant also bore a duty to ensure the doors were closed before the train moved, and its failure to do so contributed to the risk. On the probabilities, the plaintiff was primarily responsible for her injuries, but the defendant was also negligent to a lesser degree. Liability was apportioned at 80% to the plaintiff and 20% to the defendant under the Apportionment of...

Court Disposition

Liability apportioned: defendant liable for 20% of plaintiff's damages; plaintiff 80% contributorily negligent.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable for 20% of the damages suffered by the plaintiff as proved or agreed.
  • The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs on scale B.